You are on page 1of 5

STEINBUCH v. CUTLER Doc.

49
Case 1:05-cv-00970-PLF-JMF Document 49 Filed 09/26/2006 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ROBERT STEINBUCH, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 1:05-CV-970 (PLF) (JMF)
) Judge Paul L. Friedman
JESSICA CUTLER, ) Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola
)
Defendant )
______________________________________ )

MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY


AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT

On May 19, 2006, the Court set the discovery period in this case to run from that point until

October 16, 2006. On June2, 2006, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and,

on June 13, 2006, filed a Motion for Protective Order and Motion to Stay discovery pending the

outcome of the motion to dismiss. On June 30, 2006, the Court granted the motion to stay discovery.

On August 22, 2006, the Court denied Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and lifted the

discovery stay, but did not address the effect that the stay would have on the running of deadlines

which had either passed in the interim or would soon be reached. One such deadline was Plaintiff’s

designation of experts; another was Defendant’s designation of experts; and a third is the expiration

of the discovery period, currently set to expire on October 16, 2006.

Defendant has sought discovery from Plaintiff, but it is nearly certain that a motion to compel

will be required. See Exhibits 1, 2, and 3, hereto. Defendant has sought discovery from Plaintiff’s

present employer, but owing to a motion to quash filed by Plaintiff, that discovery was delayed while

the Court considered – and denied in large part – Plaintiff’s motion. See Exhibit 4. Defendant has

conducted various informal discovery, including contacting and interviewing witnesses and seeking

Dockets.Justia.com
Case 1:05-cv-00970-PLF-JMF Document 49 Filed 09/26/2006 Page 2 of 5

documents outside of the Court’s discovery process. Defendant has also sought dates for Plaintiff’s

deposition, but owing to scheduling conflicts between counsel1, no date has been provided thus far.

Defendant has sought the consent of Plaintiff in this Motion to Extend Discovery and has

neither been rebuffed nor received agreement. However, given the passage of time and Plaintiff’s

unwillingness to commit one way or another, Defendant feels that it is necessary to file this Motion

without further delay.

Therefore, Defendant asks the Court to extend the discovery period for an additional sixty

days, from October 16, 2006 until December 15, 2006. Defendant has prepared an Order for the

Court’s consideration, which is attached hereto.

Respectfully submitted this 26th day of September, 2006.

/s/ Matthew C. Billips


Matthew C. Billips
Georgia Bar No. 057110
MILLER & BILLIPS, LLC
730 Peachtree Street, Suite 750
Atlanta, GA 30308
ph: (404) 969-4101
fax: (404) 969-4141
mbillips@mbalawfirm.com

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT


JESSICA CUTLER

1
Counsel for Defendant is presently set on a trial calendar for October 10, 2006 in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Counsel for Plaintiff has
indicated the existence of a conflict which extends from the present until October 10, 2006.

-2-
Case 1:05-cv-00970-PLF-JMF Document 49 Filed 09/26/2006 Page 3 of 5

/s/ John R. Ates


John R. Ates, Esq.,

ALBO & OBLON, LLP


2200 Clarendon Blvd. Suite 1201
Arlington, VA 22201
jra@albo-oblon.com

LOCAL COUNSEL

-3-
Case 1:05-cv-00970-PLF-JMF Document 49 Filed 09/26/2006 Page 4 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ROBERT STEINBUCH, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 1:05-CV-970 (PLF) (JMF)
) Judge Paul L. Friedman
JESSICA CUTLER, ) Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola
)
Defendant )
______________________________________ )

ORDER

On May 19, 2006, the Court set the discovery period in this case to run from that point until

October 16, 2006. On June2, 2006, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and,

on June 13, 2006, filed a Motion for Protective Order and Motion to Stay discovery pending the

outcome of the motion to dismiss. On June 30, 2006, the Court granted the motion to stay discovery.

On August 22, 2006, the Court denied Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and lifted the

discovery stay, but did not address the effect that the stay would have on the running of deadlines

which had either passed in the interim or would soon be reached. Defendant has now filed a motion

to extend discovery for a period of sixty days.

THEREFORE, having considered Defendant’s Motion to Extend Discovery and for good

cause shown, the Court hereby ORDERS that the discovery period in this case shall be extended for

a period of sixty days, until December 15, 2006.

___________________________________
HON. JOHN M. FACCIOLA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-4-
Case 1:05-cv-00970-PLF-JMF Document 49 Filed 09/26/2006 Page 5 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ROBERT STEINBUCH, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 1:05-CV-970 (PLF)
) Judge Paul L. Friedman
JESSICA CUTLER, )
)
Defendant )
______________________________________ )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that I have on this day served copies of the attached “DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO EXTEND DISCOVERY” by filing this Motion using the Court’s electronic filing
system, which will automatically send an e-mail copy to counsel and by depositing a copy of same
in the United States mail with adequate postage thereon, addressed as follows:

Jonathan Rosen, Esq. Jonathan Rosen, Esq.


1645 Lamington Road 1200 Gulf Blvd., 1506
Bedminster, New Jersey 07921 Clearwater, Florida 33767

This 26th day of September, 2006.

/s Matthew C. Billips
Matthew C. Billips
Georgia Bar No. 057110
MILLER & BILLIPS, P.C.
730 Peachtree Street, Suite 750
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
(404) 969-4101
(404) 969-4141 (fax)
mbillips@mbalawfirm.com

-5-